Category: Editorials

Six lawmakers, including two from Pennsylvania, had good reason to remind military members not to follow unlawful orders, given Donald Trump’s illicit history and recent actions, such as sending federal troops into cities and boat strikes that violate international law.

The six Democrats, who either served in the military or the intelligence community, posted a short video telling their former counterparts that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

Right on cue, Trump responded with a fury of unhinged social media posts calling for the lawmakers to be jailed or executed.

“Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump wrote. He followed that with: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” He escalated in yet another post: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Trump later claimed he was not calling for members of Congress to be put to death — though his words plainly suggested otherwise.

When he isn’t lying, Trump’s abhorrent rhetoric over the past decade has become so routine that it barely causes a stir. (See: his recent outburst telling a reporter, “Quiet, piggy!” and shameful defense of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who authorized the vile murder of a journalist.)

Given Trump’s record of abusing his power, the members of Congress were right to sound the alarm.

In his previous term, Trump incited a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Let’s not forget he is a convicted felon who was criminally indicted three other times.

Trump was also impeached twice in his first term. Since his return, he has committed as many as eight impeachable offenses, according to legal scholars.

Trump’s first year back in office has been marked by relentless abuses. A federal judge said his attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional.” (The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to take it up.)

Trump’s pardon of more than 1,500 insurrectionists, including nearly 200 who assaulted police officers, rewarded lawbreakers. Other steps to freeze foreign aid, fire federal workers, send troops into cities, and deport migrants have faced more than 100 legal challenges and strong rebukes from judges.

The Republicans who control Congress have done nothing to stop Trump’s abuses, let alone investigate whether he has used the presidency to enrich himself.

Likewise, the unqualified loyalists overseeing the various government departments do whatever Trump demands. See: Attorney General Pam Bondi’s willingness to fire career prosecutors and go after Trump’s perceived political enemies.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper ignored Trump’s suggestion to shoot demonstrators following the death of George Floyd. Does anyone trust Pete Hegseth — a former weekend Fox News host who has faced allegations of financial mismanagement, sexist behavior, and excessive drinking — to show similar restraint?

That explains why the members of Congress urged service members to follow their constitutional oath — and not any unlawful orders.

Trump’s response to jail and kill elected officials is especially irresponsible given the rise in political violence, including murders of state lawmakers, a judge, and far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk. Not to mention the attack on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, the firebombing of the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion, and the attack on Trump’s own life.

After the president targeted the six Democrats, Pennsylvania Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio received bomb threats at their offices. Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin received a similar threat at her home.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) deflected Trump’s outrageous behavior by claiming it was “wildly inappropriate” for Democrats to urge troops not to follow the chain of command.

But that was not what the six legislators did. They reminded military members not to follow unlawful orders in accordance with Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

For example, the legality of Trump’s boat strikes — which have killed more than 80 people — is dubious.

A secret U.S. Department of Justice memo reportedly blessed the strikes by claiming the U.S. is in an armed conflict with drug cartels. But members of Congress from both parties argue it is illegal to target civilians — even suspected criminals — who do not pose an imminent threat. The United Nations’ human rights chief said the strikes violated international law.

As such, legal experts said if the strikes are found to be illegal, a defense by military officials of “just following orders” may not hold up in court.

Of course, Trump is shielded from prosecution thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last year that placed presidents above the law.

The same cannot be said for those who do Trump’s bidding.

The longest shutdown of the federal government in this nation’s history ended after Republicans finally agreed to consider Democrats’ appeal for an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help families buy health insurance.

What action Republicans will ultimately take is anyone’s guess before the subsidies expire in January. As for President Donald Trump, he treats healthcare like every other issue: mostly making nebulous, politically calculated statements that are counterproductive when leadership from the White House is needed.

For years, Trump has derisively called “Obamacare” bad legislation that never should have been passed, but he has never offered a better alternative.

“My first day in office, I am going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability,” Trump said on the campaign trail in 2016. Several proposed replacements to the ACA were subsequently introduced after his election, but each was defeated in the Senate, with even some Republicans voting against the inadequate alternatives.

Trump never produced anything better than Obamacare during his first administration, but that didn’t stop him from again making the healthcare law a major talking point during his reelection campaign. “We’re signing a healthcare plan within two weeks, a full and complete healthcare plan,” Trump said in July 2020. “We’re going to be doing a very inclusive healthcare plan. I’ll be signing it sometime very soon.”

But the plan never came, and Trump lost the election.

He stewed during Joe Biden’s four years as president, but promised voters during his 2024 campaign that he was ready to replace Obamacare. Pressed by reporters to reveal his alternative, Trump had to admit he had only “concepts of a plan.” Nearly a year has passed since his second inauguration, but Trump’s concepts of a better plan to make sure health insurance is affordable are still a mystery.

Unless that changes before the increased ACA subsidies expire, Congress should vote to extend them.

The subsidies help Americans who earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level — $15,650 annually for an individual and $32,150 for a family of four — pay for insurance. Without those subsidies, a person now paying $325 a year for health insurance might have to pay as much as $1,562 annually.

Many whose insurance costs will go up may decide to rejoin the ranks of the uninsured. That would be a travesty. The medically uninsured rate in America almost halved from 17.8% when the ACA became law in 2010 to 9.5% in 2023. Studies show uninsured adults have less access to medical care, receive poorer quality of care, and experience worse health outcomes than insured adults.

Ending the subsidies will turn back the clock. That doesn’t mean Obamacare shouldn’t be touched. Adjustments should be made based on how much healthcare in America has changed since the law was signed in 2010 and fully implemented in 2014.

The ACA was this country’s alternative to installing a “single-payer” healthcare system, such as Canada’s, where most funding and payments for medical treatment come directly from the government via taxes paid by the public. The ACA system in America instead retains the third-party role of private medical insurance companies such as Blue Cross, Aetna, and Cigna, whose revenue has increased greatly under Obamacare.

Most Canadians also have private insurance to pay costs not included in their government coverage, so even they don’t consider a taxpayer-funded, single-payer system the best way to provide healthcare. In fact, a survey of 11 healthcare systems provided by the world’s highest-income nations ranked Canada 10th and the United States last.

Despite spending far more of our gross domestic product on healthcare, America is at the bottom in terms of access to patient care, administrative efficiency, equity, and healthcare outcomes. In other words, we’re spending a lot of money and getting sicker in return.

The study by the Commonwealth Fund said the highest-ranked nations, including Norway and the Netherlands, which topped the list, shared four distinguishing features:

1. They provide universal coverage and remove cost barriers.
2. They invest in primary care systems that provide high-value services to all people in all communities.
3. They reduce administrative burdens that divert time and spending from health improvement efforts.
4. They invest in social services, especially for children and working-age adults.

That last point brings up another issue regarding healthcare and Trump. The omnibus legislation passed in July, which he dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” made drastic cuts to Medicaid to help pay for tax cuts expected to reduce federal revenue by $4 trillion between 2025 and 2034. Why should Medicaid, which helps cover medical costs for low-income families, older adults, and people with disabilities, be sacrificed so that Trump can boast he cut taxes?

Trump’s minions falsely said the cuts were needed to combat fraud and abuse, including a bogus claim that undocumented immigrants were receiving Medicaid benefits.

Why is this president always finding some perceived wrong among the most vulnerable Americans while lavishing praise and largess on the wealthy? Certainly, he’s more familiar with the latter, having grown up rich and being more comfortable among his people. But so many less fortunate Americans voted for him, including more than a few who depend on Medicaid.

Shouldn’t he at least occasionally seem to care for their health?

For months, Donald Trump has tried to insult, bully, and intimidate his way to keeping the House from voting on the release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On Sunday night, fearing that more than a handful of Republicans would break ranks and support the measure in a vote scheduled as soon as Tuesday, the president tried to keep the word humiliating from preceding a description of his defeat.

“The House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The abrupt about-face clears the way for Republicans to join Democrats and steadfast GOP Reps. Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace in compelling the U.S. Department of Justice to release the files.

This is an important win for the many alleged victims — around 200 women and underage girls — of the late disgraced financier, whose ties to the rich and powerful (including Trump and former President Bill Clinton) have sparked conspiracy theories about a mass cover-up and suspicion around Epstein’s 2019 suicide in a federal jail cell in Manhattan.

Once the House clears the way, the Senate should quickly follow suit and send the bill to the president’s desk. Transparency, accountability, and justice for Epstein’s victims have been delayed long enough.

Of course, even if Congress and Trump approve the measure, the fight will likely continue.

The president’s capitulation may only be a strategic retreat. His persistent unwillingness to release the information — which he had promised to make public if elected — forecasts further obstruction.

It is not difficult to wonder why.

Despite Trump’s denials, he and Epstein were once good friends, part of an elite cadre that included financial titans and political leaders. There are videos and photos of them together, and Trump repeatedly flew on Epstein’s plane (known as “the Lolita Express”).

Trump himself has faced sexual misconduct allegations by dozens of women and was found liable for sexual abuse in 2023. His appearance in published Epstein documents, which have so far included a salacious birthday card and email allegations that he “knew about the girls,” indicates there could be worse to come.

Even as he told Republicans to vote to release the files, Trump nonsensically railed that this was all a “Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics.” He argued in the same breath that Republicans shouldn’t fall into the “Epstein trap,” which was “actually a curse on the Democrats, not us.”

Only the full release of the files may reveal why the president has been so reluctant to act on a promise he made to his supporters. Why he has pressured his party so effectively that a vote on the House bill had to be forced upon Republican leadership. As this board has asked before: What are they hiding? Who are they protecting?

Unfortunately, the American people cannot fully trust those in charge of the files. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have shown that they value loyalty to Trump above all else, including going after the president’s political enemies regardless of any evidence.

Congress must ensure that both fully discharge their duties and release all required information, regardless of who is embarrassed or implicated.

Justice — and, at least for now, the president — demands it.

The most important election facing Pennsylvania voters on Nov. 4 involves whether to retain state Supreme Court Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, and David Wecht.

While voters should vote yes to retain the three justices, there are some lower court judges who do not deserve another term.

Millions of dollars have been spent on the Supreme Court race, which will impact residents in cities and towns across the commonwealth. In recent years, the state Supreme Court has ruled on a variety of high-profile issues, including elections, redistricting, reproductive health, and education.

Going forward, the court is likely to continue to confront many of the same hot-button issues — especially if Republicans gain control of the state House, the governor’s mansion, or replace the three well-qualified justices on the high court with extreme partisans.

Voters need only look to Washington, D.C., to see the danger of a politicized, conservative majority on the bench, as the U.S. Supreme Court continues to ignore precedent and rubber-stamps Donald Trump’s abuses of the rule of law.

Republican control of the White House, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court has resulted in a rapid erosion of the system of checks and balances created by the founders.

In just a few short months, the GOP has deferred all power to Trump, who has shuttered the government, demolished part of the White House, sicced the U.S. Department of Justice on political enemies while pardoning cronies, celebrities, and insurrectionists, summarily killed alleged drug traffickers without any evidence, and deported people living in America without any legal due process.

He has forced out tens of thousands of career civil servants, imposed tariffs that have roiled the economy, slashed environmental, health, and worker safety regulations, appointed incompetent hacks throughout the government, pressured red state lawmakers to take steps to rig elections, and sent federal troops into cities for no legitimate reason — all while evading previous criminal indictments and embarking on dubious personal enrichment schemes.

Much of Trump’s unchecked power emanates from the ruling last year by the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that effectively said presidents are above the law.

What does all of that have to do with the retention election of three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices? Plenty.

The state is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Yet, the GOP controls the state Senate and all three row offices: attorney general, treasurer, and auditor general.

The Democrats have a narrow edge in the House, while Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, is up for reelection next year.

Essentially, Shapiro and the Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Democratic majority, are the only bulwarks keeping Trump’s MAGA-fueled zealots from seizing total control of Pennsylvania.

If the GOP were to control the governor’s mansion and the high court, voting maps would get even more gerrymandered, voting rights, including mail-in balloting, would likely get curtailed, abortion rights would get dramatically rolled back, and pro-business groups — and polluters like gas drillers — would enjoy even less regulation. Funding for public education and transit would likely also be slashed.

Other inane red state laws could get enacted that attack science, limit teaching about race, or make it harder to get a divorce. More to the point, Pennsylvania doesn’t need a radicalized state Supreme Court like the Roberts Court, which has squandered its credibility.

Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht have demonstrated that they are fair, open-minded, and follow the law. They have restored respect to a high court that was plagued by scandals a decade ago.

But don’t just take this Editorial Board’s word for it.

The nonpartisan Pennsylvania Bar Association has a rigorous process for evaluating judges based on criteria like legal ability, integrity, and temperament. The process includes investigative panels that review the judge’s records, interview candidates, and gather input from attorneys.

After all that, both the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations recommended voting yes to retain Justices Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht.

The Philadelphia Bar Association recommended voting no to retain five lower court judges. They are Common Pleas Judges Scott DiClaudio, Daine Grey, Frank Palumbo Jr., and Lyris F. Younge. The association also recommended not retaining Municipal Court Judge Jacquelyn Frazier-Lyde, the daughter of the late boxing champion Joe Frazier.

The association does not disclose the reasons for the recommendation, other than noting that three of the five judges did not participate in the review process, which includes surveying more than 500 lawyers to assess the judges for things like integrity, legal ability, temperament, and diligence.

Another 100 volunteer investigators interview the candidates, other judges, and lawyers, as well as scrutinize the judges’ written opinions, social media posts, and financial disclosures.

The Inquirer obtained the confidential surveys, which shed more light on how lawyers view the jurists. Inquirer reporter Samantha Melamed also reviewed opinions, interviewed some of the judges, and spent time in the courtroom.

It is not always easy for voters to be well-informed when it comes to selecting judges. But the intense focus (and misinformation) on the state Supreme Court election, combined with the nonpartisan work of the bar associations, other good government groups, and The Inquirer’s reporting, has framed the stakes.

Voters will now decide the fate of Pennsylvania’s courts — and of Pennsylvanians’ freedoms.

Philadelphia has lost 187 people to homicide this year. With just over two months left in 2025, this represents a marked improvement over the pandemic era, a time when the city experienced more than 500 killings annually.

This reduction — along with an increase in the number of homicide cases detectives are solving — is worth celebrating. But, as evidenced by the horrific killing of Kada Scott and far too many other calamities, there is still much more to be done. Even if homicides remain under 240 killings this year, which would be the lowest number since the 1960s, it would still leave the city with a homicide rate that is triple that of New York or Boston.

That’s not to say there hasn’t been important progress.

In 2020, when gun violence was beginning to surge, City Council authorized the “100 Shooting Review,” which identified weaknesses in the criminal justice system and outlined a series of recommendations to cool the violence.

In 2021, Philadelphia invested more than $150 million in violence prevention and intervention programs. The disbursement of those funds was marked by instances of disorganization and insufficient oversight. However, according to those who study urban violence, the money served its purpose.

A report from the Coalition to Save Lives credited community programs, including city-funded initiatives, with helping to reduce gun violence. Community leaders like the Rev. Carl Day, pastor of the Culture Changing Christians Worship Center, also stepped up, even without city support.

Thanks, in part, to new technology and the installation of high-definition cameras across the city, police are now solving between 85% and 91% of homicide cases, a 40-year high.

The clearance rate — or the percentage of homicides that have been solved — had dipped as low as 42% in recent years, meaning killers were more likely than not to get away with murder in Philadelphia.

Beyond providing closure for families and accountability to perpetrators, solving cases and prosecuting offenders can also help deter future acts of violence. According to crime researchers, certainty of punishment is one of the most effective deterrents for those who are likely to kill. This effect is particularly strong for younger offenders, who tend to act impulsively. Given that gun violence among teens continued to rise despite the progress made in other age groups, continuing to improve the clearance rate is essential.

Solving cases also helps to prevent cycles of retributive shootings by gang members. These days, experts say, it is song lyrics and social media beefs that drive many conflicts between rival gangs, not territorial clashes. Solving cases, and doing so quickly, can help intervene before these groups become the next Young Bag Chasers.

Despite the drop in the murder rate, Philadelphia still often feels beset by misdemeanors and lower-level felonies that contribute to an overall sense of disorder. Reckless driving permeates nearly all corners of the city, many transit stations reek of smoke and urine, illegal dumping plagues communities, blighted buildings like the former Ada H.H. Lewis Middle School attract crime, and police can take hours to respond to calls.

Many Center City businesses feel the need to employ armed security due to regular incidents involving thieves or emotionally disturbed people. In August, a security guard at a women’s clothing store fired a warning shot at a man who was harassing the staff. Earlier this month, a security guard at an IHOP in Center City was charged with murder after shooting a man who allegedly spat on her. Buying clothes and eating pancakes should not feel like a trip to the Wild West, nor should crossing the street feel like a game of Frogger.

Philadelphia’s leaders, including Police Commissioner Kevin J. Bethel, deserve credit for the progress the city has made in providing justice and reducing gun violence. But the job is far from over.